On 05/01/2017 10:51 PM, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 16:31:10 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote:
If we had a type similar to TaggedAlgebraic...
Destroy?
It's too strict: you have to specify concrete types beforehand.
No, that's why my suggestion was:
"If we had a type similar to TaggedAlgebraic, but was an open variant
rather than a closed algebraic (Ie, a type like Phobos's Variant, but
forwarded member access without first requiring explicit conversion to
the exact underlying type),"
